CLAIMS FOR WAGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22955, 5 February 1938, Page 23

CLAIMS FOR WAGES

INTERPRETING AWARDS APPEALS TO COURT BAKERIES AND TANNERIES Two appeals brought by inspectors of awards were heard bv the Second Court of Arbitration, presided over by Mr. Justice Hunter, * yesterday. In the claim by an inspector, C. P. Brookes, against Arthur Edmund Thomas, trading as the Crown Bakery, Sandringham Road, a case was stated for the Court by Mr. C. R. Orr Walker, S.M. The plaintiff had claimed to recover a £lO penalty from the Crown Bakery for a breach of the bakers and pastrycooks and their labourers' award, alleging that the firm had employed D. Guptill and failed to pay him tho prescribed minimum wage. Guptill was 19 years old on February 3, 1937, and since September 18, 1936, had been paid £2 16s 6d weekly. On occasions he placed dough on the scales and made its weight correct, and ho also cut large pieces of dough out of the trough, which he placed on tho bench ready for cutting up. Question !o:r Court The inspector contended that this was trade work and that Guptill should be paid £5 10s a week as a journeyman baker. The question for the Court was whether the work done by Guptill was outside the scope of his work as a junior labourer and entitled him to receive wages as a journeyman baker. Mr. C. P. Smith appeared for the department and Mr. J. Hogben for the defendant. The Court reserved its decision.

Complaint was brought by an inspector, Mr. C. P. Smith, that beamsmen under tho Northern District fellmongers, tanners and sciapworkers' award ought to be paid at the rate prescribed under the bcamsmen's award of 1922, through tho operation of the Finance Act, 1936. Tho defendant, for whom Mr. Alderton appeared, was E. Astley and Sons, Limited, by whom beamsmen are now being paid at the 1934 award rate as scudders. Definition ol "Beamsmen"

Mr. Alderton said that the work of beamsmen had been completely altered since 1922 by the introduction of machines, and the definition had been altered in later awards. The matter had been referred to the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. R. E. Price, who had decided the matter without hearing tho parties, and this decision was liable to be quashed as a previous decision had been in December. The Court adjourned tho hearing sine die, tho parties having agreed that the matter bo referred to a Conciliation Commissioner other than Mr. R. E. award was not in substitution for the Price for determination. Tho defendant agreed not to take the point that tho previous award.